sorry had to post it

[rjr9999]

I'm sorry, i just had to post this....it's VERY annoyong having to right my html or java 2 times when trying to layer something. Microsoft needs to get off thier high horse and keep javascript as javascript, html as html, etc.
Not to mention the fact that NETSCAPE made javascript, not microsoft, who gives them the right to change it? Just my 2 cents, heh, sorry again.

Rob

 

[GIGN]

How embarassing for NetScape - they invent something, then do poorly at it! ;-)

b² - benbiddington@surf4nix.com

 

[tsdragon]

RIGHT ON bangers!
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[luciddream]

microsoft doesn't use javascript.... they use JScript, which, they can do whatever they want with... thank god! luciddream@subdimension.com

 

[mrdev]

I tought MS had already VBScript??
Isn't that enough money making??

<Mr. Developer/>

 

[rob99]

well, here's a simple example for ya....
NETSCAPE = document.layer.left = 10;
whereas
IE = document.all[&quot;div&quot;].pixelLeft = 10;

not to mention in the html...
NETSCAPE = <layer name=&quot;layer&quot; left=0 top=0>whatever</layer>
whereas
IE = <div name=&quot;div&quot; style=&quot;position:absolute; left:0; top;0>
whatever</div>

So here i notice 2 things....netscape's version is much shorter, and much closer to actual html (thus easier to learn)....also, that if i want it to be seen in both, i would have to do a browser check, and still have BOTH codes in thier...oh, and those style sheets? *shudders at the thought* Forget programming structure...it's just horrible, horrible i tell you....ok, i'll stop bashing now, have fun

Rob

 

[luciddream]

actually... NS4.x is no where near standards compliant...

the <layer> tag... are you kidding me with this?

i'd have to say that until Mozilla, IE was probably more standards compliand than any other browser... luciddream@subdimension.com

 

[rjr9999]

ok, riddle me this then...CSS is all great looking when it's compadible yes...but what's the use of writing all that extra to make your page look good, when only a certain selection of people will be able to see it? Are you aware that statistics show that about
42% of people surfing use a CSS compadable browser? Sure, it seems like a lot, but consider 68% of people surfing the web can't see all that work you did...and vice versa, 42% can't see what work you did likewise...It seems to me that CSS is nice looking, but microsoft also needs to keep in mind that not everyone wants to use thier buggy programs, so they need to be compadible with others....Ok, i'm done now, really, hehe.

Rob

 

[luciddream]

well, CSS is a standard... and is supported by all standards compliant browsers.... and last stats i looked at (March 2001) showed 80 some percent of people use IE5+... so, i wouldn't say that 68% of your viewers won't see your CSS.... plus... it's up to us web-devepopers to push the standards... make people upgrade their browsers... if people want sites to look nice and support modern technology... they're just gonna have to upgrade to compatible browsers.... plus... if MS didn't take the initiative to extend the standards and make cool stuff, we'd still have crap like a document.layers collection. luciddream@subdimension.com

 

[rjr9999]

the 80% statistics are based on a poll by people redirected from a microsoft page, 1st off. Second, i work for an isp that is connecter to sprint and at&t dialers. And i also do web-design as part of my job. Judging from sprint and at&t's statistics (actual statistics, not a poll) it's 42% CSS compadible, and 58% (68% was a typo, sorry) non CSS compadible. And in microsoft's eyes, anything microsoft is a standard. In case you havn't noticed, i'm one of those old UNIX buff's . You know, microsoft bashers and all. I agree, style sheets look great, and it wouldn't hurt for other browsers to support them, unfortunately, microsoft would not allow that. Age old policy is that you can't use anything microsoft, unless you're using microsoft (yes it's redundant, but true). Also, as any decent programmer knows, if you want a hit program, make it user friendly....and i'm sorry to say, in order to be user friendly, you have to be somewhat backwards compliant (as in, if theirs an older version, make the program be able to run that as well as the new version). For example...what happens when you compile a C program with a C++ compiler? Nuff said

Rob

 

[tsdragon]

luciddream IS correct. CSS is a STANDARD, and NOT just a Microsoft one. It was developed so people COULD have more control over the appearance of their pages.

BTW, I'm a unix buff too, and used to be a Microsoft basher. But after seeing how poorly Netscape performed, and how badly they kept up with standards, and how well IE did it, I changed my attitude somewhat. I still think Microsoft is Big Brother trying to control every aspect of the web and the PC, but I'll stick with IE until something better comes along, which NS 6.0 is NOT.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[rjr9999]

CSS is not a standard, i'm sorry, but you've been misinformed...the only STANDARD when baseing off of web-design is html. CSS is simply an extention that was indead created by a predecessor of microsoft.

 

[jaredn]

Please, rjr9999, I understand that a company that makes uer-friendly software and a damn good browser is obviously spawned from the 666th layer of the abyss, but lets get real, and try not to make up info to convict Bill Gates.

The information me & lucid are referring to are actually from

http://thecounter.com

. Not a poll. You see,

http://thecounter.com

offers a free hit counter service for peoples web sites. When someone comes to one of these sites, their enviornmental varibales (browser,os type,etc) are sent back to

http://thecounter.com

, who then process it and make it available to quell disvussions such as this one. It is not a poll!

Secondly:

&quot;Not to mention the fact that NETSCAPE made javascript, not microsoft, who gives them the right to change it?&quot;

Who cares? Up until mozilla, and since IE4, Microsoft has offered the most standards-compliant browser available. Netscape created js, and then the standards bodies decided to create a specification (hence ECMAScript). Microsoft followed/anticipated the standards more correctly, hence the adoption many IE features in Netscape 6.0 (innerHTML,optional event bubbling, among others).

As far as writing mutliple sets of code for different browsers, this CAN be a thing of the past (almost). For instance,

http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/xtree/index.html

.
This component works in IE5+ and Mozilla (NS6) without a single piece of browser-checking code. IF however, the developers don't start pushing users to upgrade their browsers (

http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/

) this dream will never come to fruition.

Microsoft created iframes (now a standard), they have
getElementById (now a standard), laughed at a layers collection, and made every element accesible via DOM.

But most of all LONG LIVE BlackHat LunIX!!!!!!!!!!!!

jared@eae.net -

http://webfx.eae.net

 

[luciddream]

and ... as far as CSS is not a standard... why don't you check out...

http://www.w3c.org

and click on the CSS link.

hmm... why would the people who make the standards have a CSS section on their page if it wasn't a standard. luciddream@subdimension.com

 

[luciddream]

oh yeah... here's a quote... its kinda hard to find... its at the bottom of the page...

Cascading Style Sheets, level 1 (CSS1) became a W3C Recommendation in December 1996. It describes the CSS language as well as a simple visual formatting model. CSS2, which became a W3C Recommendation in May 1998, builds on CSS1 and adds support for media-specific style sheets (e.g. printers and aural devices), downloadable fonts, element positioning and tables.

CSS3 is currently under development. You can follow its progress as new drafts are published.

luciddream@subdimension.com

 

[tsdragon]

Thanks luciddream, you proved my point (OK, it's a recommedation rather than a standard, so sue me). I didn't want to take the time to actually find the standard, and assumed anyone who wanted to could look it up for themselves before telling us we were mistaken.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[luciddream]

the standards are recommendations...thats what W3C calls them... for example XHTML 1.1 is a W3C recommendation...

example quote from them guys:

10 April 2001: W3C is pleased to announce the publication of Modularization of XHTML as a W3C Recommendation. The specification is stable, and has been reviewed by the W3C Membership, who favors its adoption by academic, industry, and research communities. The Recommendation extends XHTML's reach onto emerging Web platforms like mobile devices, television, and appliances. Read the press release and testimonials.

luciddream@subdimension.com

 

[snt]

All this bickering.

Very simple:
Netscape is full of problems.

 

[iza]

to sum up ... and try to depassionate ...
netscape is actually the closer to the standards for HTML, really, it's true
ie is the closest for javascript and css
so a &quot;static&quot; &quot;classical&quot; web site is better viewed on ns, a &quot;dhtml&quot; one better viewed on ie, and a &quot;perfect&quot; one on both (including opera and lynx and tv browsers) ;-)
(not speaking yet of xml and xsl and other friends ...)